Exploring the “secret garden”: Instructional communication in one-to-one instrumental lessons

(1)

Exploring the “secret garden”: Instructional communication in one-to-one instrumental lessons

Desvendando o “jardim secreto”: A comunicação entre professor e aluno no ensino individual do instrumento

Clarissa Foletto

Inet-md and University of Aveiro, Portugal clarissafoletto@ua.pt

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to present a discussion on the existing paradigm of instructional communication in one-to-one instrumental lessons. Some authors described individual lessons as something like a ‘secret garden’ compared with the scrutiny given to classroom behavior in schools. In such lessons, to communicate and express ideas about musical meaning has been established as one of six instrumental/vocal teacher roles. However, the overall studies reported that one-to-one instrumental teaching has mostly followed a model characterized by one-way communication from teacher to student. In addition, the literature outlined that instrumental teachers used a specific pedagogical vocabulary to explain and demonstrate a skill. Some strategies for communicating this vocabulary effectively were highlighted and discussed in this article. Regardless of the insights here discussed, the literature review presented indicated few studies focused on instructional communication in one-to-one instrumental lessons. Although this field of research is increasing, some authors claim that the research in instrumental teaching is not following up the current demand for this practice.

Keywords: One-to-one instrumental teaching; instructional communication; teacher and student interactions; communication strategies; teaching cues.

Resumo

O presente artigo discute o estado da arte referente à comunicação de instruções no ensino individual do instrumento. Alguns autores descreveram a aula individual como um “jardim secreto”, em comparação com o escrutínio científico dado às aulas de música em grupo. A partir da investigação já feita sobre esta temática foi possível verificar que a comunicação de ideias relacionadas a um significado musical tem sido estabelecida como um dos seis papéis do professor de instrumento/canto. No entanto, a grande parte dos estudos reportam que o ensino instrumental tem seguido, na sua maioria, um modelo caracterizado pela comunicação unidirecional do professor para o aluno. Além disso, a literatura existente tem apontado que os professores de instrumento usam um vocabulário pedagógico específico para explicar e demonstrar uma competência. Algumas estratégias para comunicar este vocabulário de forma efetiva foram destacadas e discutidas neste artigo. Com base na literatura levantada foi possível verificar uma lacuna de estudos focados na comunicação de instruções em aulas individuais de instrumento. Alguns autores sugerem que, embora esta área de investigação esteja aumentando, a investigação no ensino instrumental não está acompanhando a demanda atual da prática.

Palavras-chave: Ensino instrumental; comunicação de instruções; interação entre professor e aluno; estratégias de comunicação; pistas pedagógicas.

Introduction

Unlike most musicians, I started ‘teaching’ violin before I had a formal violin lesson. My first contact with learning an instrument was with the piano, which was when I was seven years old. Some time passed after my first piano class until my younger sister, at the age of three, started

(2)

ISSN 1645-4774

Eduser: http://www.eduser.ipb.pt

51

EDUSER: revista de educação, Vol 10(2), 2018

to learn violin by the Suzuki Method2_{. At that moment, I assumed the position of ‘parent’,} according to the Suzuki’s tripartite model, and thus my journey teaching a musical instrument started. My responsibilities with my sister included all activities concerning violin practice. In order to help her to learn new pieces, I had to use different strategies such as demonstrations and metaphors and sometimes even I played a given passage on her small violin in order to demonstrate a point. This experience was the main reason I gave up the piano and started to learn the violin.

My first formal experience as a violin teacher started quite early, after only six years of violin practice. Ever since then, I have realized how difficult it is to make instructions clear to students. Such difficulty encouraged me to attend several teacher-training courses in order to improve my teaching skills. Despite my willingness to develop such skills, it was only in recent years that my interest in understanding the process of communication in one-to-one instrumental lessons has started to arise. Such interest emerged from those teacher-training courses as well as from my experience in teaching violin. In my career it was not uncommon to listen to my peers to try to find out answers to the following questions: ‘How do you teach vibrato to your students?’, ‘How do you approach the shifting?’ or even discussion as ‘Why, for some students, do I need to repeat some instructions so many times?’ and ‘Why, sometimes, do the students not remember what I have said in the last lesson?’ Such discussions seemed to emerge from an apparent need to find the “best” strategy for teaching students; I had felt the same needs many years earlier. The scenario described so far is reported here in order to illustrate how my journey shaped the definition of the research topic approached in this article: instructional communication in one-to-one instrumental lessons, i.e. the communication established between teacher and students taking into account a pedagogical content.

The importance given to instructional communication in one-to-one instrumental lessons has been recognized in the literature. This importance resides on a common scenario of instrumental lessons where teachers need to use technical vocabulary in order to explain and demonstrate a skill (Duffy and Healey, 2013; Duke, 2014; Hallam, 2006; Lennon and Reed 2012; Mills 2007). Sometimes, technical vocabulary contains many words applied to concepts totally unrelated to the technical concept meanings (Novak, 2010). If the instruction is too complex, students may become confused; they might not remember all the details involved (Petrakis and Konukman, 2001). Following this line of thought, one of the teacher’s challenges while teaching

2_{In the Suzuki Method, the parents are one of the central parts of the pupil’s learning, so he or she (or both) must}

(3)

an instrument, mainly in early stages of learning, is to approach complex content (shaped by a specific vocabulary) using effective, creative and clear communication, which can be understood and recalled by the student later. Based on this, it seems of paramount importance discussing the process of instructional communication in one-to-one instrumental lesson. Therefore, this article presents a conceptual literature review (Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey, 2011) which aims to synthesise the conceptual knowledge of the general process of instructional communication and the particularities of this process in one-to-one instrumental lessons.

The General process of instructional communication

Instructional communication is a process through which teachers and students “stimulate meanings in the minds of each other using verbal and nonverbal messages” (Mottet and Beebe 2006, p.149). Such a communicational process is a particular type of interpersonal communication. This means that “one participant in a social interaction receives a verbal or nonverbal communication from another, interprets its meaning, construes its implications, and then decides how, if at all, to respond to it” (Wyer and Gruenfeld, 1995, p. 7).

According to Wyer & Gruenfeld (1995), interpersonal communication is based on different objectives (e.g. to inform; to cause a good impression; to persuade the recipient to adopts one’s point of view; to understand the issues being discussed), which in turn shape the generated response. The information conveyed could involve the exchange of ideas, feelings, intentions, attitudes, expectations, perceptions and commands by speech, gestures, writings and behaviours (Leathers and Eaves, 2008).

Founded in such theoretical assumptions, instructional communication has been analysed taking into account three main components (i.e. the learner; the instructor; and the meanings). Based on these components, two theoretical approaches have been identified in instructional communication (i.e. relational and rhetorical). Relational approach assumes teachers and students share information and ideas, producing common meanings and understandings through a positive relationship. The final aim of such process is generating simultaneous learning (Mottet and Beebe, 2006). While relational approach considers both, teachers and students as source and receivers of information, rhetorical approach assumes that teacher is the person primarily responsible for creating messages. This approach considers that teachers select and stimulate meanings in students' minds. Such a linear process accepts that the teacher is the primary source of information while student is the receiver. In fact, this perspective is being recognized as a teacher-controlled model (Mccroskey, Valencic, and Richmond, 2004; Mottet and Beebe, 2006;

(4)

ISSN 1645-4774

53

Waldeck, Kearney, and Plax, 2001). According to McCroskey et al. (2004), rhetorical approach “is considered to be the ‘traditional’ approach to instruction and is widely employed throughout the world” (Mccroskey, Valencic, and Richmond, 2004, p. 198).

Although the growing interest in collaborative learning in educational settings, most instructional contexts are still based on the model described above (Myers, 2010; Preiss and Wheeless, 2014; Walton, 2014). Thus, this scenario does not contribute to negotiation of concepts and meanings in teaching and learning environments (Novak, 2010). The rhetorical model of instructional communication can be considered an example of a “banking” metaphor of education, which was further discussed and critiqued by Freire (1970). Such a type of education becomes an act of positing, in which students are depositories while teachers are the depositors (Freire, 1970, p. 72).

Instructional Communication in one-to-one instrumental lessons

The context of one-to-one instrumental lessons reflects a scenario where individual teachers and students are isolated from researchers (Burwell, 2005). Some authors described individual lessons as “something of a ‘secret garden’ compared with the scrutiny given to classroom behaviour in schools” (Young, Burwell, and Pickup, 2003, p. 144). The dyad of teacher and student can demonstrate the complexity of human interactions and cultural evolution, including “the use of language, symbol systems, tools and many aspects of human psychology” (Kennell, 2002, p. 243). Moreover, challenges such as the nonverbal nature of the artistry, teachers’ blindness concerning professional issues, the skills involved and the variety of existing teachers’ approaches to instrumental lessons are some of the reasons that constrain the study of this phenomenon (Burwell, 2005).

In addition, one-to-one instrumental teaching has mostly followed the master-apprentice model (Creech and Gaunt, 2012). Such a model is characterized by one-way communication from teacher to student (Lehmann, Sloboda, and Woody, 2007; Young, Burwell, and Pickup, 2003). Since this model is still a core activity in western classical instrumental teaching and learning (Creech and Gaunt, 2012), the quality of teacher’s instructions has been recognized as a key factor which distinguishes expert teachers from their less-expert counterparts (Colprit, 2000; Duke and Henninger, 2002).

To communicate and express ideas about musical meaning has been established by the ‘Polifonia’ working group for instrumental and vocal teacher training in Europe (2007-2010) as one of six instrumental/vocal teacher roles (Lennon and Reed, 2012). This particular role concerns the

(5)

development of pedagogical skills, which are required to assist students to develop their artistry (Lennon and Reed, 2012). The main body of research that investigates interactions between teacher and student has led mainly observational studies focused on behavioural components of instrumental teaching and learning (Burwell, 2010; Hallam, 2006; Rosenshine, Froehlich, and Fakhouri, 2002). One of the main contributions of such studies has been the categorization of common behaviours in instrumental lessons. Table 1 shows some examples of the main categories identified by different authors.

(6)

ISSN 1645-4774 Eduser: http://www.eduser.ipb.pt

55

Table 1 - Behaviours categories in one-to-one instrumental lessons based on the literature (Burwell, 2010; Creech, 2012; Hepler, 1986; Siebenaler, 1997; Simones, Schroeder, and Rodger, 2015; Zhukov, 2012).

(7)

The table above describes two main categories: (i) teacher’s patterns of interaction and (ii) teacher and student’s patterns of interactions. Among the categories presented is possible to identify different approaches used by the authors to analyse the same object. While some approaches have focused on detailed behaviours (e.g. Zhukov, 2012), others have been more generalised in their approaches (e.g. Burwell, 2010). Despite the differences between terminologies used, it was possible to observe four main broad behaviours in one-to-one instrumental interactions (Burwell, 2010; Creech, 2012; Hepler, 1986; Siebenaler, 1997; Simones, Schroeder, and Rodger, 2015; Zhukov, 2012):

• Student bodily action - tuning, playing alone and accompanied, performing

• Student verbal action - agree, disagree, contribute with their own idea, self-assess, choosing what to play, student joke, student excuse and student talking on non-musical matters

• Teacher hands-on - modelling, scaffolding, demonstrating, accompany pupil, listening/ observing, performing, vocal performance, teacher body movement

• Teacher verbal action - giving direction, problem solving, advice, coaching, music talk, teacher conceptual statements, teacher technical statements, attributional and non-attributional feedback, teacher joke, teacher disappointment, teacher sympathy, teacher questioning and giving practice suggestions.

The main findings of such investigations report a scenario where teachers mostly talk, technique is often emphasized and questioning represents a small proportion of time (Burwell, 2010; Creech, 2012; Hepler, 1986; Siebenaler, 1997; Simones, Schroeder, and Rodger, 2015; Zhukov, 2012). Furthermore, these studies emphasize that students’ activity in the lessons is mainly about playing.

The scenario described above motivated research on verbal and non-verbal communication in instrumental teaching and learning. Four different modes of teacher verbal and non-verbal communication were identified by (Kennell, 1992): (i) verbal/declarative statements (e.g. that phrase is forte!); (ii) verbal/commands (e.g. play that section forte for me); (iii) verbal/questions (e.g. what does forte mean?); and (iv) nonverbal/gestures (e.g. accented fist gesture in the air). Kennell (1992) found that teachers have used declarative statement and nonverbal gesture when they assumed that the student understood the musical concept, or even when the student had acquired the required skill to perform the task (Kennell, 1992). Moreover, teachers used questions when they assumed that the student did not understand the concept. Finally,

(8)

ISSN 1645-4774

57

commands were used when teachers needed to verify whether the students were able to execute a specific skill or not (Kennell, 1992).

Apart from the perspectives championed by Kennell (1992), other authors have explored verbal and non-verbal communication in one-to-one instrumental lessons (e.g. Duffy, 2015; Rostvall and West, 2003) Particularly, Rostvall and West (2003) conducted research on the content of teachers’ verbal communication. The authors recognized five different educational functions behind speech and music during the lessons, namely: (i) testing/inquiring; (ii) instructional; (iii) analytical; (iv) accompanying; and (v) expressive functions. In such study, the authors explored how different patterns of interaction affect students’ opportunities to learn. The main findings suggest teachers rarely play during the lessons, and interaction is distributed asymmetrically (Rostvall and West, 2003). According to the authors, such findings affect negatively the opportunities of students to learn (Rostvall and West, 2003).

The role of nonverbal communication in instrumental teaching has been also considerably discussed (Carlin, 1997; Gipson, 1978; Hepler, 1986; Highlen and Hill 1984; Kurkul, 2007; Levasseur, 1994; O’neill, 1993; Simones, Schroeder, and Rodger, 2015). Researchers identified that nonverbal behaviour has an important role in teaching expressivity in music performance. According to (Highlen and Hill, 1984) “nonverbal behaviour is a primary mean of expressing or communicating emotions (…) [and] give clues to a person’s attempts at concealing emotions” (Highlen and Hill 1984, p. 368). Nonverbal communication in one-to-one instruction was systematically observed. Table 2 brings together the main categories recognized by some authors. Based on previous established categories (Gipson 1978; Hepler, 1986; O’neill, 1993; Levasseur, 1994; Carlin, 1997), Kurkul (2007) have summarized three main categories of non-verbal communication (see Table 2), namely: (i) Kinesics (eye contact, facial expression, hand gestures and body orientation); (ii) Proxemics (physical distance, touching); and (iii) Paralanguage (silence and voice quality). Recently a new categorization was established by Simones, Schroeder, and Rodger (2015) who classify nonverbal communication in two groups (see Table 2): (i) spontaneous co-verbal gestures and (ii) spontaneous co-musical gestures (Simones, Schroeder, and Rodger, 2015). According to Simones et al. (2015), teachers use both spontaneous co-verbal and co-musical gestures simultaneously. In some cases this use may also be independent of the desired outcome (Simones, Schroeder, and Rodger 2015, p. 117).

(9)

Table 2 - Nonverbal behaviour categories in one-to-one instrumental lessons based on the literature (Carlin, 1997; Gipson, 1978; Hepler, 1986; Kurkul, 2007; Levasseur, 1994; O’neill, 1993; Simones, Schroeder, and Rodger, 2015).

(10)

ISSN 1645-4774

Educação

59

The perspectives discussed here highlight that research on instructional communication has increased with growing interest into instrumental teaching effectiveness. Several authors presented here have emphasized the premise that “good communication” is a sine qua non element of effective teaching (Carlin, 1997; Colprit, 2000; Duke and Henninger 2002; Kurkul, 2007; Macgilchrist, Reed, and Myers, 1997; Siebenaler, 1997). In the same line of thought, the quality of a teacher’s communication has been highlighted as a key factor that distinguishes expert teachers from novice teachers (Colprit, 2000; Duke and Henninger, 2002). According to Siebenaler (1997), effective teachers change behaviours more frequently and are more efficient in their verbalizations (Siebenaler, 1997, p. 7).

Effective instructional communication

Effective communication in one-to-one instrumental lessons is being characterized taking into account the clarity of verbal instructions and explanations of concepts, which are delivered without unnecessary interjections or asides (Lehmann, Sloboda, and Woody, 2007, p. 195). Such characteristics have been highlighted in studies that investigated the differences between experienced and novice teachers. In such studies, expert teachers were recognized as those who spent a short time talking (Duke, 1999; Goolsby, 1996; Goolsby, 1999; Tait, 1992). According to Lehmann et al. (2007), “excessive talking is almost an epidemic among novice or ineffective music teachers” (Lehmann, Sloboda, and Woody 2007, p. 195). Also, efficient teachers focus on specific priorities in their verbal instructions to students, namely: tone quality, intonation, style, and expression, while novice teachers address technique predominantly (Goolsby, 1997; Goolsby, 1999; Lehmann, Sloboda, and Woody, 2007; Young, Burwell, and Pickup, 2003).

Findings from Lennon and Reed (2012), highlight the importance of choosing pedagogical strategies and approaches to communicate effectively the ideas intended (Lennon and Reed, 2012). According to the authors, instrumental/vocal teachers need to develop eleven competences to communicate effectively with their students (Table 3). The authors discuss these competences, from the creation of educative learning situations to the use of technology as an aid to instrumental/vocal teaching and learning (see Table 3).

(11)

(i) Create educative learning situations that engage students in musically meaningful ways that expand and develop their musical skills, knowledge, understanding and imagination

(ii) Communicate effectively with individuals and groups, using language in creative and imaginative ways in promoting student understanding and responsiveness

(iii) Verbalise, articulate and explain technical, musical, theoretical and artistic concepts and skills, using imagery, analogy, questioning and discussion as pedagogical tools

(iv) Musically demonstrate technical, musical and artistic concepts and skills

(vi) Use constructive feedback strategies in creative ways and, where appropriate, incorporate peer learning into the process

(vii) Use a variety of methods, resources and materials appropriate to the needs and learning styles of students, to nurture and develop students’ technical and interpretative abilities, alongside their reading, aural and performance skills, and their creativity and imagination

(viii) Facilitate the development of good habits in relation to technique and posture in a way that enables students to use their bodies in an efficient and healthy way

(ix) Help students develop effective and appropriate practice and rehearsal strategies (x) Incorporate improvisation and composition in the teaching and learning process (xi) Use technology creatively as an aid to instrumental/vocal teaching and learning where appropriate

Table 3 - Required components to communicate effectively with students (Lennon and Reed, 2012, p. 297).

Another aspect that seems to shape effectiveness in instrumental/vocal teaching and learning is the relationship between teacher and students (Hallam, 1998; Manturzewska, 1990; Sloboda & Howe, 1991; Sosniak, 1990). According to Lehmann et al. (2007), teacher and student interactions can be observed and analysed through the systematization presented in this context. Yarbrough and Price (1989) have identified three sequential patterns of instruction in one-to-one lessons, namely: (i) teacher presentation of a task; (ii) student response and engagement with the task; and (iii) teacher feedback (i.e. related to the student response). According to the authors, the ability to complete these three sequential patterns of instruction characterize effective teaching (Yarbrough & Price, 1989).

(12)

ISSN 1645-4774

Educação

61

Strategies to communicate effectively

Several strategies to communicate effectively can be found in the literature. Such strategies were mainly identified in studies on music expressivity. Tait (1992) suggests that such strategies are shaped by vocabulary choice and usage. Among the strategies discussed, Karlsson and Juslin (2008) highlighted the importance of metaphors. Other authors identified modelling and emphasizing emotion felt as effective strategies to communicate musical ideas around expressivity (Arrais & Rodrigues 2007; Barten, 1998; Brenner & Strand, 2013; Froehlich & Cattley, 1991; Gabrielson & Juslin, 1996, 2003; Karlsson & Juslin, 2008; Laukka, 2003; Persson, 1996; Sloboda, 1996; Watson, 2008; Woody, 1999; Woody, 2000).

Asides from the studies on expressivity in musical performance, other strategies to communicate effectively were recognized by Wood et al. (1976), namely: (i) marking critical features – this strategy emphasizes certain features of the task that are relevant; (ii) demonstration – this strategy exemplifies solutions to a task (e.g. listen to this); and (iii) frustration control – this strategy is characterized by the ways that teachers communicate to reduce student anxiety (e.g. I know this is hard, but just do your best) (for review see Kennell, 1992). Such strategies were identified as a distinguishing feature among expert teachers.

The use of teaching cues

In fields other than music there has been a concern to find means to improve instructional communication. Such studies explored the concept of retrieval cues, which are recognized as stimuli, e.g. pictures, objects, gestures or words that assist with information retrieval from long-term memory (Baddeley, 1999; Gleitman, Gross, & Reisberg, 2010). Retrieval cues have been used in sports education as a pedagogical tool which helps teachers to give instructions. This tool was refined and designated as teaching cues (Petrakis & Konukman, 2001). In physical education field, teaching cues were identified as a means to assist athletes in improving their attention, comprehension and information retention (Petrakis & Konukman, 2001).

Given the interpersonal and communicative features of instrumental teaching and learning, a pilot study was conducted to identify this tool in the context of instrumental lessons context (Foletto, 2013, 2016; Foletto, Carvalho, & Coimbra, 2013). The pilot case study aimed to identify what can be recognized as a teaching cue in one-to-one violin teaching. The positive results achieved from areas other than music motivated the exploration of such a tool as a means by which to optimize teacher and student communication in instrumental lessons. Data analysis revealed in one-to-one instrumental lessons that teaching cues were summarized information in a teacher’s instructions used to alleviate the overload of information (Foletto, 2013; Foletto,

(13)

2016; Foletto, Carvalho, & Coimbra, 2013). These results corroborate the findings from physical education where teaching cues have been explored (Konukman & Petrakis, 2001; Landin, 1994; Rink, 1993). Four main characteristics proposed by these authors were taken into account in such identification (i.e. guide the focus during the performance; give a clear picture of the skill; be accurate; and be essential to the task presented). On the other hand, data analysis highlighted that teachers and learners might not be conscious that certain specific words or gestures they use may alleviate the overload of information.

In addition, the outcomes illustrate that teaching cues were present in both a teacher’s verbal and nonverbal instructions. During the lessons observed, teaching cues were introduced after a detailed explanation of the content. The analysis verified that most teaching cues were verbalized. Particularly, such verbalization occurred when teachers focused on aspects related to technical and/or motor skills. Such findings corroborate previous studies, which indicate teachers mostly focused on technique skills during their lessons (Hallam, 2006; Tait, 1992; Kostka, 1984; Hepler, 1986; Thompsom, 1984). This focus on technique seems to be rather common in the early stages of learning (Hallam, 2006). Although these results corroborated existing perspectives in instrumental lessons, the use of teaching cues had not previously been described in this scenario yet.

Based on the results presented in this pilot study (Foletto et al., 2013) and previous studies which provided evidence of the use of short verbalizations as a means to effective teaching (Duke, 1999; Goolsby, 1996, 1999; Tait, 1992), teaching cues might be a useful means by which to reduce the existing gap between teachers’ instructions and students’ understanding (Lehmann et al., 2007). However, little attention has been given on the literature concerning this pedagogical tool, as described above. Thus, further exploration is still needed in order to refine the perspectives on the contribution of teaching cues for instructional communication.

The role of feedback in instrumental teaching and learning

Teacher feedback is being accepted as a crucial component of effective instructional communication in many disciplines (Duke & Henninger, 2002). Research on teacher and student interaction emphasizes the key role of feedback in instrumental and vocal teaching (Burwell, 2005; Duke & Henninger, 2002; Gaunt, 2008, 2011; Krivenski, 2012; Presland, 2005; Young et al., 2003; Zhukov, 2008). According to Duke (2014), teacher feedback serves two purposes: provide information and motivate behaviours. According to the author, feedback may inform the “learner the quality or accuracy of his/her work and impel him/her to take action or refrain from certain behaviour in the future” (Duke, 2014, p. 128). In addition, Duke (2014)

(14)

ISSN 1645-4774

Educação

63

explains that feedback may vary from indications of correctness and accuracy to informative descriptions concerning the quality of performance.

The relationship between the quality of teacher feedback and teaching effectiveness has been also addressed in the literature. Duke and Henninger (2002) observed that expert teachers provided more accurate feedback than their less expert counterparts. Such difference was identified in terms of quantity, content and specificity. The most common particular feedback assignments used by expert teachers were to make detailed references to tone quality, intonation, expression, phrasing or articulation (Colprit, 2000; Duke & Henninger, 2002). In order to provide effective feedback, teachers need to give guidance to students on how to close the gap between the current and desired levels of performance in relation to a task (Sadler, 1989). In addition, other authors have argued that praise combined with physical prompts might be a positive and sustained form of corrective feedback in instrumental lessons (Salzberg and Salzberg, 1981).

Some authors defend the view that effective learning can happen when teachers combine evaluative and descriptive types of feedback (Eyers and Hill, 2004; McPhail, 2010). The nature of teachers’ feedback is often reported in the literature as verbal (e.g. giving directions; asking questions; providing information; giving positive, negative, or neutral feedback; writing on the score; and off-task comments) and non-verbal (e.g. playing alongside the student; modelling; imitating the student’s performance; making hand gestures; smiling, laughing, nodding, shaking, facial expression; and conducting or tapping the pulse) (Benson & Fung, 2005; Burwell, 2010; Hamond, 2013; Siebenaler, 1997; Speer, 1994; Welch, Howard, Himonides, & Brereton, 2005). Although positive feedback can benefit younger students (Duke, 1999; Lehmann et al., 2007), Duke and Henninger (2002) found that expressed criticism in lessons can also be useful.

Despite the growing interest in effective forms of feedback, little research has explored students’ understanding of teachers’ instructions. Burwell (2010) argues that effective communication between teacher and student depends on a shared understanding. However, there is evidence that suggests that sometimes students do not understand the meanings of teachers’ instructions (Burwell, Young, & Pickup, 2004). Following the same line of thought, Woody (2002) defends students’ need first to acquire the specific vocabulary and internalise the patterns to understand teachers’ feedback. The author also posits that students must be involved in such processes, which may encourage them to express their ideas in the lessons (Burwell, 2010; Burwell et al., 2004; Woody, 2002, 2006).

(15)

Pedagogical vocabulary

Music teachers use a specific pedagogical vocabulary in order to explain and demonstrate a skill (Welch et al., 2005). Such vocabulary refers to the verbal language behind teacher-student discourse (Duffy, 2015; Kennell, 2002). According to Kennell (2002), teacher discourse in one-to-one lessons is spontaneous and directed to the specific student. However, such discourse is shaped by the student’s level and the skill approached. The nature of this teacher-student discourse is a feature that distinguishes one-to-one lessons from master class or group lessons (Kennell, 2002).

Tait and Haack (1984) suggest three kinds of useful vocabulary in teaching music: professional, experiential, and behavioural (thinking, feeling and sharing). In such vocabulary Lehmann et al. (2007) distinguished verbal language distributed in two main categories: (i) metaphorical language; and (ii) procedural language. The first category (i.e. metaphorical language) is mostly explored when expressiveness is the focus (Lehmann et al., 2007, p. 195). Wood (2002) suggests teachers have a repertoire of metaphorical language to help students to develop their expressive performances. Such language may depend to “some extent on the cultural traditions behind the instrument and musical style studied” (Burwell, 2010, p. 73). Sometimes, owing to cultural differences, inappropriate use of this type of vocabulary may frustrate the student, who may not understand the meaning behind the words used by the teacher (Lehmann et al., 2007). The second category (i.e. procedural language) concerns the use of verbal language focused on concrete musical sound properties. This category addresses elements such as: note duration, tempo, intonation, dynamics, and articulation (Lehmann et al., 2007). Such a kind of verbal language can be more useful when approaching technical and expressive aspects of performance (Lehmann et al., 2007).

Concluding Remarks

The importance of communicating effectively, using language in creative and imaginative ways in order to promote student understanding and responsiveness, has been highlighted in the literature as one of teachers’ challenges in instrumental lessons (Duffy, 2015; Duffy & Healey, 2013; Lennon & Reed, 2012). Despite this, few studies have been focused on instructional communication in instrumental lessons (Kennell, 1992, 2002; Lennon & Reed, 2012; Rostvall & West, 2003). This article explored the current paradigm of the communication in one-to-one instrumental lessons. Overall, the studies reported a scenario where teachers mostly talk, technique is often emphasized and questioning represents a small proportion of time. Furthermore, students’ activity in the lessons is mainly playing. Concerning the content

(16)

ISSN 1645-4774

Educação

65

communicated in instrumental lessons, the literature outlined that instrumental teachers used a specific pedagogical vocabulary in order to explain and demonstrate a skill. Some strategies for communicating this vocabulary effectively were highlighted in the literature (i.e. metaphors; modelling; emphasizing emotion felt; marking critical features; demonstration; and frustration control). In addition teaching cue is suggested as a pedagogical tool to improve the effectiveness of instructional communication. Finally, the literature also suggested that sometimes students do not understand the meanings of teachers’ instructions. Some authors asserted that students must be involved in the communication processes, which may encourage them to express their ideas in the lessons.

Regardless of the insights here discussed, the literature review presented indicated few studies focused on instructional communication in one-to-one instrumental lessons. Therefore, there is still a lack of research on the meanings behind instruction, as well as students’ understanding of such meanings. In addition, research on the use of teaching cues as a means by which to optimize instructional communication in instrumental teaching and learning is almost non-existent. Thus, it is not possible to recognize either the potential use of such a tool in instrumental teaching or how it can optimize the communication process. Although this field of research is increasing, some authors claim that the research in instrumental teaching is not following up the current demand for this practice.

References

Arrais, N., & Rodrigues, H. (2007). Cognitive feedback and metaphors in emotional communication instruction of musical performance. Presented at the International Symposium in Performance Science, Porto Portugal. Retrieved from http://www.performancescience.org/ISPS2007/Proceedings/Rows/46Arrais%20etal.p df

Baddeley, A. (1999). Essentials of Human Memory. Hove: Psychology Press.

Barten, S. S. (1998). Speaking of music: The use of motor-affective metaphors in music instruction. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 32(null), 89.

Benson, C., & Fung, C. V. (2005). Comparisons of teacher and student behaviors in private piano lessons in China and the United States. International Journal of Music Education, 23(1), 63–72.

Brenner, B., & Strand, K. (2013). A Case Study of Teaching Musical Expression to Young Performers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(1), 80–96. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022429412474826

(17)

Burwell, K. (2005). A degree of independence: teachers’ approaches to instrumental tuition in a university college. British Journal of Music Education, 22(03), 199–215. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051705006601

Burwell, K. (2010). Instrumental teaching and learning in Higher Education (PhD Dissertation). University of Kent.

Burwell, K. (2012). Studio-Based Instrumental Learning. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Burwell, K., Young, V., & Pickup, D. (2004). The dynamics of the instrumental tutorial. In D. Hunter (Ed.), How am I doing? Valuing and rewarding learning in musical performance in higher education (pp. 22–33). Ulster: University of Ulster.

Carlin, K. (1997). Piano Pedagogue Perception of Teaching Effectiveness in the Preadolescent Elementary Level Applied Piano Lesson as a Function of Teacher Behavior (PhD Dissertation). Indiana University, Indiana.

Colprit, E. J. (2000). Observation and Analysis of Suzuki String Teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48(3), 206–221. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345394

Creech, A. (2012). Interpersonal behaviour in one-to-one instrumental lessons: An observational analysis. British Journal of Music Education, 29(03), 387–407.

Creech, A., & Gaunt, H. (2012). The changing face of individual instrumental tuition: Value, purpose and potential. In G. Welch & G. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Music Education (Vols. 1–Other chapter contribution, pp. 694–711). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Duffy, S. (2015). Shaping Musical Performance Through Conversation (PhD Dissertation). Queen Mary University of London, London.

Duffy, S., & Healey, P. (2013). Music, speech and interaction in an instrumental music lesson: An ethnographic study of one-to-one music tuition. In M. Orwin, C. Howes, & R. Kempson (Eds.), Language, Music and Interaction (pp. 231–280). College Publications. Duffy, S., & Healey, P. G. T. (2014). The conversational organization of musical contributions.

Psychology of Music, 42(6), 888–893. http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735614545501

Duke, R. A. (1999). Teacher and Student Behavior in Suzuki String Lessons: Results from the International Research Symposium on Talent Education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(4), 293–307. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345485

Duke, R. A. (2014). Intelligent music teaching: Essays on the core principles of effective instruction. Austin, Texas: Learning and Behavior Resources.

(18)

ISSN 1645-4774

Educação

67

Duke, R. A., & Henninger, J. C. (2002). Teachers’ Verbal Corrections and Observers’ Perceptions of Teaching and Learning. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(1), 75–87. Eyers, G., & Hill, M. (2004). Improving student learning? Research evidence about teacher

feedback for improvement in New Zealand schools. Waikato Journal of Education, 10, 251– 61.

Fischer, S. (1997). Basics: 300 Exercises and Practice Routines for the violin. New York: Edition Peters. Fischer, S. (1998). Technique and ease in violin playing. In I. Winspur & C. Parry (Eds.), The

musician’s hand: a clinical study. London: Martin Dunitz Ltd.

Foletto, C. (2011). A optimização da técnica violinística da mão esquerda através do sistema de padrões de dedos. In Proceedings and abstracts book Performa ’11 (pp. 1–11). Aveiro: University of Aveiro.

Foletto, C. (2013) Otimização do ensino aprendizagem instrumental: um estudo sobre a memorização de informações nas aulas de violino. Post-Ip: Revista Do Fórum Internacional de Estudos Em Música e Dança, Vol. 2(2), p. 54–62.

Foletto, C. (2016) Instructional communication in one-to-one instrumental lessons: the use of teaching cues in violin tuition (PhD Thesis). University of Aveiro, Aveiro.

Foletto, C, Carvalho, S, & Coimbra, D. (2013) Retrieval cues as a teaching tool in one-to-one instrumental lessons: A pilot study. In Procedings of the International symposium on performance science, Viena: AEC. p. 619–624.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Froehlich, H. C., & Cattley, G. (1991). Language, Metaphor, and Analogy in the Music Education Research Process. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 25(3), 243–257. http://doi.org/10.2307/3333005

Gabrielson, A., & Juslin, P. (1996). Emotional Expression in Music Performance: Between the Performer’s Intention and the Listener’s Experience. Psychology of Music, (24), 68–91. Gaunt, H. (2008). One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: the perceptions of instrumental and

vocal teachers. Psychology of Music, 36(2), 215–245. http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735607080827

Gaunt, H. (2011). Understanding the one-to-one relationship in instrumental/vocal tuition in Higher Education: comparing student and teacher perceptions. British Journal of Music Education, 28(02), 159–179. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051711000052

Gipson, R. . (1978). An Observational Analysis of Wind Instrument Private Lessons (Dissertation Abstracts International (AAT 7818757)).

(19)

Goolsby, T. W. (1996). Time Use in Instrumental Rehearsals: A Comparison of Experienced, Novice, and Student Teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(4), 286–303. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345442

Goolsby, T. W. (1997). Verbal Instruction in Instrumental Rehearsals: A Comparison of Three Career Levels and Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(1), 21–40. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345463

Goolsby, T. W. (1999). A Comparison of Expert and Novice Music Teachers’ Preparing Identical Band Compositions: An Operational Replication. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(2), 174–187. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345722

Hallam, S. (1998). Instrumental Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.

Hallam, S. (2006). Music psychology in education. London: Badford Way Papers.

Hamond, L. (2013). Feedback on elements of piano performance: Two case studies in higher education studio (pp. 33–38). Presented at the International Symposium on Performance Science, Viena.

Hepler, L. (1986). The measuremnt of teacher-student interaction in private music lessons and its relationship to teacher field dependence/field independence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

Highlen, P., & Hill, C. (1984). Factors Affecting Client Change in Individual Counseling: Current Status and Theoretical Speculations. In S. . Brown & R. . Lent (Eds.), Handbook of Counseling Psychology (pp. 334–96). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hultberg, C. (2005). Practitioners and researchers in cooperation—method development for qualitative practice-related studies. Music Education Research, 7(2), 211–224. http://doi.org/10.1080/14613800500169449

Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. (2011). Doing your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques. London: SAGE Publications.

Juslin, P. N. (2003). Five facets of musical expression: a psychologist’s perspective on music performance. Psychology of Music, 31(3), 273–302.

Karlsson, J., & Juslin, P. N. (2008). Musical expression: an observational study of instrumental teaching. Psychology of Music, 36(3), 309–334.

Kennell, R. (1992). Toward a theory of applied music instruction. The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 5–16.

Kennell, R. (2002). Systematic research in studio instruction in music. The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning, 243–256.

(20)

ISSN 1645-4774

Educação

69

Konukman, F., & Petrakis, E. (2001). Verbal and Visual Teaching Cues for Tennis. JOPERD-The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72 (3), 38–43.

Krivenski, M. (2012). ‘Feeding back’ in musical performance Exploring feedback practice in relation to students’ and tutors’ learning and teaching experience (Summary Report). PALATINE.

Kurkul, W. W. (2007). Nonverbal communication in one-to-one music performance instruction. Psychology of Music, 35(2), 327–362. http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735607070385

Landin, D. (1994). The Role of Verbal Cues in Skill Learning. Quest, 46(3), 299–313. http://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1994.10484128

Laukka, P. (2003). Vocal Expression of Emotion: Discrete-emotions and Dimensional Accounts (Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary). Uppsala University, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology., Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Retrieved from 141.

Leathers, D. G., & Eaves, M. H. (2008). Successful Nonverbal Communication: Principles and

Applications. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Retrieved from

https://books.google.pt/books?id=ZXhWAAAAYAAJ

Lehmann, A. C., Sloboda, J. A., & Woody, R. H. (2007). Psychology for musicians - Understanding and Acquiring the skills. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lennon, M., & Reed, G. (2012). Instrumental and vocal teacher education: competences, roles and curricula. Music Education Research, 14(3), 285–308. http://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2012.685462

Levasseur, S. J. (1994). Non-verbal communication in applied voice studio. Nonverbal Communication in the Applied Voice Studio.

MacGilchrist, B., Reed, J., & Myers, K. (1997). The intelligent school. London: Sage Publications. Manturzewska, M. (1990). A Biographical Study of the Life-Span Development of Professional

Musicians. Psychology of Music, 18(2), 112–139.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735690182002

McCroskey, J. C., Valencic, K. M., & Richmond, V. P. (2004). Toward a general model of instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52(3), 197–210. http://doi.org/10.1080/01463370409370192

McCullagh, P., Stiehl, J., & Weiss, M. R. (1990). Developmental Modeling Effects on the Quantitative and Qualitative Aspects of Motor Performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61(4), 344–350. http://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1990.10607498

McPhail, G. J. (2010). Crossing boundaries: sharing concepts of music teaching from classroom to studio. Music Education Research, 12(1), 33–45.

(21)

Mills, J. (2007). Instrumental teaching. London: Oxford University Press.

Mottet, T., & Beebe, S. (2006). Foundations of instructional communication. In T. Mottet, V. Richmond, & J. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 3–32). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Myers, S. (2010). Instructional communication: The emergence of a field. In D. Fassett & J. Warren (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of communication and instruction (pp. 149–159). California: Sage Publications.

Nerland, M. (2007). One-to-one teaching as cultural practice: two case studies from an academy of music. Music Education Research, 9(3), 399–416. http://doi.org/10.1080/14613800701587761

Novak, J. (2010). Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Oxon: Routledge.

O’Neill, S. (1993). Identifying Variations in Teacher Behaviour during Children’s Individual Music Tuition. Presented at the Indiana Symposium on Research in Social Psychology of Music.

Persson, R. (1996). Brilliant performers as teachers: a case study of commonsense teaching in a conservatoire setting. International Journal of Music Education, os-28(1), 25–36. http://doi.org/10.1177/025576149602800103

Petrakis, E., & Konukman, F. (2001). Verbal and Visual Teaching Cues for Tennis. JOPERD-The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72(3), 38–43.

Preiss, R. W., & Wheeless, L. R. (2014). Perspectives on Instructional Communication’s Historical Path to the Future. Communication Education, 63(4), 308–328. http://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.910605

Presland, C. (2005). Conservatoire student and instrumental professor: the student perspective on a complex relationship. British Journal of Music Education, 22(03), 237–248. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051705006558

Rink, J. (1993). Teaching Physical Education for Learning (2o_{ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.}

Rosenshine, B., Froehlich, H., & Fakhouri, I. (2002). Systematic instruction. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (pp. 299– 314). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rostvall, A.-L., & West, T. (2003). Analysis of interaction and learning in instrumental teaching. Music Education Research, 5(3), 213–226.

(22)

ISSN 1645-4774

Educação

71

Salzberg, R. S., & Salzberg, C. L. (1981). Praise and Corrective Feedback in the Remediation of Incorrect Left-Hand Positions of Elementary String Players. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(2), 125–133. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345021

Siebenaler, D. J. (1997). Analysis of Teacher-Student Interactions in the Piano Lessons of Adults and Children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(1), 6–20.

Simones, L., Schroeder, F., & Rodger, M. (2015). Categorizations of physical gesture in piano teaching: A preliminary enquiry. Psychology of Music, 43(1), 103–121. http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735613498918

Sloboda, J. (1996). The Acquisition of Musical Performance Expertise: Deconstructing the ‘Talent’ Account of Individual Differences in Musical Expressivity. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences (pp. 107–26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sloboda, J. A., & Howe, M. J. A. (1991). Biographical Precursors of Musical Excellence: An Interview Study. Psychology of Music, 19(1), 3–21. http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735691191001

Sosniak, L. A. (1990). The tortoise, the hare, and the development of talent. In M. Howe (Ed.), ncourag- ing the development of exceptional skills and talents (pp. 149–164). Leicester: The British Psychological Society.

Speer, D. R. (1994). An Analysis of Sequential Patterns of Instruction in Piano Lessons. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(1), 14–26. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345333

Tait, M. (1992). Teaching strategies and styles. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 525–534). New York: Schirmer.

Tait, M. J., & Haack, P. (1984). Principles and Processes of Music Education: New Perspectives. Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Retrieved from https://books.google.pt/books?id=mVR4QgAACAAJ

Waldeck, J., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (2001). Instructional and developmental communication theory and research in the 1990s: Extending the agenda for the 21st century. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 24 (pp. 207–230). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Walton, J. D. (2014). Critical comments on the general model of instructional communication.

Education, (1), 115.

Watson, A. (2008). "I want to live in America”: Using imagery in instrumental music teaching. Victorian Journal for Music Education, pp. 11–16.

(23)

Welch, G. F., Howard, D. M., Himonides, E., & Brereton, J. (2005). Real-time feedback in the singing studio: an innovatory action-research project using new voice technology. Music Education Research, 7(2), 225–249. http://doi.org/10.1080/14613800500169779

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Woody, R. H. (1999). The Relationship between Explicit Planning and Expressive Performance of Dynamic Variations in an Aural Modeling Task. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(4), 331–342. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345488

Woody, R. H. (2000). Learning Expressivity in Music Performance: An Exploratory Study.

Research Studies in Music Education, 14(1), 14–23.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X0001400102

Woody, R. H. (2002). Emotion, Imagery and Metaphor in the Acquisition of Musical Performance Skill. Music Education Research, 4(2), 213–224. http://doi.org/10.1080/1461380022000011920

Woody, R. H. (2006). The Effect of Various Instructional Conditions on Expressive Music Performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(1), 21–36. http://doi.org/10.1177/002242940605400103

Wyer, R., & Gruenfeld, D. (1995). Information processing in interpersonal communication. In The cognitive bases of interpersonal communication (Dean Hewes). Hove England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Yarbrough, C., & Price, H. E. (1989). Sequential Patterns of Instruction in Music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37(3), 179–187. http://doi.org/10.2307/3344668

Young, V., Burwell, K., & Pickup, D. (2003). Areas of Study and Teaching Strategies Instrumental Teaching: a case study research project. Music Education Research, 5(2), 139– 155. http://doi.org/10.1080/1461380032000085522

Zhukov, K. (2008). Exploring the content of instrumental lessons and gender relations in Australian higher education. British Journal of Music Education, 25(02), 159–176. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051708007900

Zhukov, K. (2012). Interpersonal interactions in instrumental lessons: Teacher/student verbal and non-verbal behaviours. Psychology of Music.